sporumfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Sporum Members
Talk:Sporum Members/Archive 1 = Potential Changes = There has been arisen potential issues with the page, specifically the Sporum Nobility Secion Nobility But you are forcing your opinion of who is "noble," on us by making that list. Also, what I did is a reflection of some of the opinions I've seen from other users when they come in ECF chat. There are other people who think this section is stupid too. Dragonvoid 21:31, June 18, 2011 (UTC) Warning I think that we should add a warning to the main page that the page is really a work in progress, due to the fact that the previous title system was bullsh*t. We should keep a warning, of sorts, on that page, so that people don't take the categorization too seriously until it is complete. Jabba1 00:43, June 21, 2011 (UTC) = Potential Changes = member page It needs to be entirely deleted and restarted. Its gone to hell and these stupid nobility and hated members sections are so damn rude and insulting to some quite frankly. Its not necessary at all. On top of that it looks too organized. It needs a more classic look. Listing people as under their first letter is a little confusing at least for me. Does anyone else agree or am I just the local dumb ass here? -drew The Unpopular users section (or whatever it was called/has been called) was actually created in order to raise people who sort-of spammed up from Spammer, and some users (like STUPIDOO) put themselves there. What are you talking about, it being too organized? What is a classic look? But, anyways, I am moving this section to, you know, the page it is actually about. LurkerLordB 16:51, June 23, 2011 (UTC) My Personal Opinion: I think that the whole Gods/Chuck Norris/Nobility should be removed. The whole Heads of State thing was created by Drew in his attempts to get the SPT to take over feedback. The Spammers Should Be left as they are, but with more condensing into fewer pages, perhaps maybe just 1 spammer page for all? I have decided it was a mistake to create untouchables, as it has just led to n00bs who do not know who Aravan was thinking he was a spammer and trying to impersonate/accuse alts of him. This would reduce the page to 4 sections: Developers, Sporemasters, Users, Spammers. I would keep the alphabetizing, as it makes it easier to navigate the page. Users can add a 1-like description by themselves, if they so desire. This will be implemented in two days if no other comments, or only affirmative comments, are posted from here on out. If anyone is against this, then I will not implement this in two days, and will try and think of a new solution. I have locked this page until the new agreement can be made. LurkerLordB 17:13, June 23, 2011 (UTC) I think that my blog post Revision to Sporum Members might be relevant. I know Lurker has looked at it, I just wanted the community at large to, by adding it to this talk page. And I don't agree with the "Classic Look." If by that you mean ad hoc and disorganized, it's a no-go from me. Jabba1 04:41, June 26, 2011 (UTC) I have renamed the sections to what Jabba suggested and deleted a couple uneccessary ones. However, I have kept the member list by first letter, because I don't know what to classify everybody as. If changing it to what forum they are most active in is important to someone, they can begin constructing that on the talk page. I wish luck to anyone who would attempt that mighty task. LurkerLordB 01:28, June 28, 2011 (UTC) As I have said on the Sporum, I would like to see the member page become more objective. As it stands now, it is okay, but I think we could stand to get rid of the "gods," section. The only person in it that has contributed anything to the community is really Davo. Ashloc is awesome yes, but not really a god to anyone but a few remaining veteran S&Sers. Didzo being a god is just a meme, and Footvents is an alt, most likely of Blackbird, and I've been on the Sporum for a long time, but I don't even know what the hell the whole footvents thing is about. If someone wants to break it down by most used section, then I support that, but I'm not going to be the one to do it. You might start a thread on the Sporum and ask people to submit their names for it. However, there are not that many people left using the Sporum anymore, so it might not even be worth the effort. Dragonvoid 18:47, June 28, 2011 (UTC) Alphabetical Order and Categories I think that for the categorization by forum most used, we should do that ''in conjunction ''with putting the users in alphabetical order. It could function something like this(keep in mind this is just a simulation and a stripped-down version of what it will be): The Normal People Scientists *scientistA *scientistB *scientistC Roleplayers *roleplayerA *roleplayerB *roleplayerC And so on. Also, you should alphabetize the trolls just like the "The Normal People" section is alphabetized, as I find it makes navigation easier. Additionally, you could categorize trolls by Spammer, Troll, Flamer, Hypertroll, etc. Jabba1 17:17, June 28, 2011 (UTC) Discussion: Alphabetical Order and Categorization There aren't really enough trolls to make it hard to classify. Also, there don't need to be more than one category, that just glorifies them. LurkerLordB 20:51, June 28, 2011 (UTC) Okay, no troll categorization. But the trolls should be alphabetized for easier navigation, I don't see how that "glorifies" them. Furthermore, you should alphabetize the individual sub-categories of "The Normal People" which I listed in my previous post on this page. Jabba1 22:29, June 28, 2011 (UTC) I meant giving them titles such as Hypertroll glorifies them. Alphabetizing them is good, but I don't think they need to be divided up by alphabet, just one classification. LurkerLordB 23:26, June 28, 2011 (UTC) It was a bit of a nuisance going through the Trolls section without the alphabetical headings. Can you addh those again? Jabba1 01:14, June 29, 2011 (UTC) There are only about the number of trolls in that section as there are members in each of the larger sections, and I am about to move a couple to the minor trolls page, making even less. LurkerLordB 23:02, June 29, 2011 (UTC) Now there are only about 14 troll links, that should not be too hard to navigate without being split apart. LurkerLordB 23:27, June 29, 2011 (UTC) It's still a bit of an annoyance. But what about the other things, such as I discussed on the related blog post? Jabba1 01:22, June 30, 2011 (UTC) The renaming of the sections has been done, with the exception of Untouchables, which has been deleted. The 5 rotating users of the month may have been a good idea when the wiki was more active, but now I fear that the wiki community is too small to actively implement it. The classification by favorite forum seems too late now that it has been by alphabet for so long, plus many users post in many forums, I would just keep it as it is. LurkerLordB 02:33, June 30, 2011 (UTC) Maybe that can be implemented later at the user's own discretion. However, as for the top five users of the month, I agree, if and when the wiki is more active, we should implement it. Unrelated: #What's your Sporum username? #Are there any Wiki Admin openings? Jabba1 05:08, June 30, 2011 (UTC) The Wiki does not need more admins, and no one still on it can even make you one. You do not good at working together with people anyway, so god help this Wiki if you figure out how to become an admin. Dragonvoid 08:47, June 30, 2011 (UTC) My Sporum username is DragonEye4. There are no remaining bureaucrats who can change user levels. LurkerLordB 19:08, June 30, 2011 (UTC) Legendary Users?... Complete bullshit section quite frankly. They're just normal people you all over-hyped. Amourialis 15:13, July 14, 2011 (UTC) I have been editing the template page And I would like to present changes. *The "legendary" users are now in the normal people. *Outcasts, Spammers and Untouchables are now one category, "spammers, trolls and other disliked ones" *Other random junk to keep it up to date. 34j6 wiki 20:49, July 24, 2011 (UTC) I will update the template to be more like this list, for consistency purposes. 22:35, July 26, 2011 (UTC) Slyth33 We should add him to the moderators section, because he is one. Jabba1 00:29, August 7, 2011 (UTC) I added him, and I unprotected the page, so whoever the other guy is can be added. LurkerLordB 02:19, August 7, 2011 (UTC)